Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Monuments of the United States

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [1].

---

List of National Monuments of the United States

Nominator(s): Reywas92^Talk

• Featured list candidates/List of National Monuments of the United States/archive1

After getting a peer review to address some of the proofreading concerns brought up before, I think this list is ready for FL. Reywas92^Talk 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved. Check the toolbox, two dab links need to be fixed. Fixed dm (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC) "The United States has 100 protected areas known as national monuments." Comma after "areas". That would imply there are altogether 100 protected areas and all are known as national monuments. "this former burial ground containing"-->this former burial ground that contains Done "and also includes the ruins" Done Are all the images from NPS employees? Knowing this would save much time on my part. The images are from a variety of sources dm (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Images are copies from the article or commons. Some may be from NPS. "One of the most diverse ecosystems found in the Cascade Range also has more than 100 dwelling and root-gathering sites belonging to the Modoc, Klamath, and Shasta tribes."-->One of the most diverse ecosystems found in the Cascade Range, it has more than 100 dwelling and root-gathering sites that belong to the Modoc, Klamath, and Shasta tribes. Done "caves stretching "-->caves that stretch Done "2 million-year"-->2-million-year Done "set-aside"-->set aside Done "second and third largest natural bridges"-->second- and third-largest natural bridges Done No need to link United States more than once, especially in the tables. Done "as 7 times lager" I that you are referring to size, not beer :) Done "his monument protects a variety of cultural and natural resources " Comma after here. Done "site dating from between 1650 and 700 BC"-->site that dates from between 1650 and 700 BC Done "an inland sea covering the region."-->an inland sea that covers the region. Done "federally-listed " -ly adverbs don't need hyphens Sometimes they do. We discussed this in my last FLC. OK, I see, this is one of those dual-functioning words. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) "is also included in the monument." Done "belt surrounding St John, VI"-->belt that surrounds St John, VI Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Sources Ref 102, http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/lewistown_field_office/UM.html, is dead. This still needs to be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Done Reywas92Talk 17:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Refs 68 and 69 need format=PDF added to them. Done L.A. Times needs to be italicized, as well as any other newspapers, magazines and journals. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Done. Thanks for all your help, Dabomb! Reywas92Talk 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Doncram About the counting of national monuments, I began to question about this in the last peer review, but i didn't get back to it promptly, sorry for not doing so, hence need to continue here. I see an issue in the fact that the article asserts that there are 100 National Monuments, but that is neither sourced nor made self-evident in the article. It is unclear, I think, whether 100 is a rounded off number, an approximate number, or what. It would be a feasible and good accomplishment of the wikipedia list-article to establish how many national monuments currently exist (and/or how many previously existed). The table looks fine at first glance, and it is explained. But there are problems (this discussion was garbled by later edits, i think). doncram (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added a numbers column to the table, since it helps editing specific rows in the table. dm (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, i see. I would prefer the numbers were small (like 78 rather than 78), so that it would be more clear they are not official numbers. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Numbering was in, but now is gone, so my preference about number size is moot. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is the only way to document the 100 number, but in state lists of National Historic Landmarks and many other NRHP lists, the use of a numbering column makes it self-evidently observable in the list-article how many items are in the list. (Of these only List of NHLs in AL is a featured article.) I believe that small-sized row numbers can be used in this way like the numbering that appears for row numbers in Excel, without causing undue confusion that the numbers are official numbers or have any other meaning.

Honestly, I really don't like those numbers. They mean absolutely nothing. It does no good to arbitrarily number the monuments because they're alphabetical. And when a new monument is created we'll just have to redo the whole thing. The NPS site numbers them, but that's by date created and includes past NMs. In my opinion we don't have to prove to the reader that there are 100 by counting them one by one. It's not rounded, there just happens to be exactly 100, and I don't think numbering each one alphabetically is the best way to prove that. This article does not need to conform to the NHL lists, a completely separate topic, and I disagree with their use there.

I think that your stated concern about maintenance issues is completely bogusoid; wp:NRHP is not very much taxed with renumbering list-tables spanning about 50,000 U.S. NRHP sites that get about 25 updates every week. It is Friday night now, the update came out a few hours ago, all the NRHP lists have been updated already. There are new National Monuments every few years. You could deal with that. But, I can accept nonetheless you don't like the numbering; i think it is a matter of personal taste. For the NRHP list-articles, it is more important that every one of them make a self-evident total, so that nation-wide we can contribute a nation-wide total. In this article, the first table also provides an opportunity to support the exactness of the 100 total. So, okay by me. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In this article, the leading table "Breakdown by federal agency and department" provides another opportunity to establish the 100 it is not a standard type of table (I know of no examples like this, although if there are in some other FL articles i might not like those either). It includes triple entries of some of the national monuments. The table is actually confusing as to how many national monuments there are. The table's diagonal entries total to 105, if you add them up yourself. The total of all entries in the table is 115. There is no column or row of totals involving each agency and overall. I think a revised table is needed, which would provide in a row or in a column the total number of national monuments associated with each agency, and a deduction for duplications, and an overall total of 100.

Also about the leading table, the order of agencies within the table shows no obvious order. It is neither in alphabetical order nor in order of frequency. doncram (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues: Table of agencies dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Table of Agencies Do you like this better? dm (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Agency Department Managed Co-Managed Total Managed Armed Forces Retirement Home (AFRH) Veterans Affairs 1 0 1 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Interior 12 3 15 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Interior 4 2 6 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commerce 0 1 1 National Park Service (NPS) Interior 73 3 76 United States Forest Service (USFS) Agriculture 5 1 6 Total 95 5 (10) 100 (105) Ah, okay, i also developed some alternatives, linked from the article Talk page. Copying your version there too, as version 4. Currently I personally prefer freq order as in version 3b at Talk:List of national monuments of the United States/AgencyTable. Discuss at article Talk page or here? doncram (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC) We could discuss that there. I agree with your points about the table, and some of the alternatives look pretty good and are less confusing. I'm fine with 3C, it seems to solve all problems. One slight tweak is to make the columns sortable dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) I guess 3C or whatever was adapted into the article, and i think it is better. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved issues: Name Sort Issue dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Sort Issue from dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC) A question raised at the Talk page of the article, at List of National Monuments of the United States#Ordering of peoples names, is about the ordering of entries involving persons' names. Should "Booker T. Washington" appear at B or at W in the order. The question was raised by dmadeo with whom i work on NHL and NRHP lists. Reywas92 prefers showing Booker at B, and gives two examples where it is given that way in lists elsewhere. I personally think it could go either way, leaning towards Reywas92 preference, and am happy to defer to Reywas92 judgment. I bring it up here because these FLC discussions seem to be used for setting precedent for judgements about NHL lists and other NRHP lists. There are currently over 1,000 NHL and other NRHP list-articles in development, all hopefully coming towards FLC, where the choice by wp:NRHP so far has been to put the place names in order at the last name of persons. I want to avoid future problems which this FLC plus Reywas92's comment in the discussion could pose. Reywas92 commented there that "That's not right for this list, and I would consider it wrong for the NHL list". I want to point out that there is justification for different practices in different types of lists. In lists of NRHPs, there are many cases where putting in lastname order groups together related places, e.g. in a list of NRHPs in Arkansas, it would put together William H. Smith House, Atlanta, AR, listed on the NRHP in Arkansas Smith House (Bentonville, Arkansas), listed on the NRHP in Arkansas Rowland B. Smith House, Camden, AR, listed on the NRHP in Arkansas S. G. Smith House, Conway AR, listed on the NRHP in Arkansas and that seems good and appropriate, rather than having them scattered due to random differences in how the names are entered into the NRHP's database system. In this list of national monuments there are proportionally fewer person names involved, and no situations where it would be better to put any pair of them together. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with how the list ordering is done here, but if someone wanted to make a general FLC rule that places named after a person needed to be at first name first, always, I would oppose that. If there must be a rule one way or the other, I would argue the opposite for its more general applicability (thousands of NRHP lists in pipeline, vs. just a few national monument list-articles). Thanks. I'd rather keep it this way because that's the official name of the monument and it's how the other sites do it. I do see how NPS sorts by last name for NHLs, but that is separate from NMs. There should not be any rule because there is variability. I'm fine with leaving this the way it is. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Okay this fine then. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to this national monuments list, I think it would add to the article to identify how many of the monuments are historic sites listed on the NRHP. Which ones those are might best be listed in a footnote. Some national monuments, such as the African Burial Ground one in NYC, are historic sites primarily, actually listed on the NRHP and possibly also further designated as NHLs before being further designated as National Monuments. Other national monuments are primarily natural areas. One source for this is the official PDF list of National Historic Landmarks (available here), which includes at the end mention of all the national monuments which are NRHP-listed. I could help with this, don't think including this or not should change the FL decision here. Overall, I do support this list-article for FL. doncram (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am happy with you denoting NRHPs/NHLs in this list, but I'm not as interested in them as much as you. Again, that is a separate system of recognition for places that is not directly relevant to NMs so I don't think it is urgently needed, but you are welcome to note it.

It's worth noting in the description, there are only a few of them. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, i am not sure how many there are or not. The analysis started at a subpage of the article Talk page may lead to a sentence being added to the article "___ of the 100 sites are listed on the NRHP, and ___ are further designated NHLs." This would be somewhat helpful to characterize how many National Monuments are declared by presidents for their historical importance, relative to the already stated number of ones listed for their environmental importance (alone or in addition to historic importance). This is taking some time to develop, is not a high priority. I support FL status for this list without that addition. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About the African Burial Ground one, the description needs some rewording. It links to the National Historic Landmark program, which is probably good and appropriate, but it suggests that that the place is "now landmarked" as if the NHL designation came recently, after NM designation. In fact it was an NHL first. Perhaps the link to the National Historic Landmark program should come in, also, in some intro paragraph text about how many of these are NHLs. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right, though I'm not what what is the best way to rewrite it. Thanks for all of your comments! Reywas92^Talk 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take another crack at it. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the agency table to version 3C. Thanks for helping with that! Reywas92^Talk 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good, i thinks it be better. As I said elsewhere I do recognize it not being easy to create clear tables like this, hence my taking on the task of trying to develop alternatives, rather than simply criticizing yours. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Full Support for FL listing now, all my concerns addressed. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments from dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I hate to bring this up, but it's not clear to me that Fort Moultrie is a national monument of its own. It appears to be part of Fort Sumter. dm (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the exact details, but they are both National Monuments. Moultrie is considered a unit of Sumter because they are nearby and administered together, but they count as two. [2][3] Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those webpages are, or how official they are. I figured, cut to the chase and called the number on the official web page. She very patiently explained that Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Charleston harbor are three separate locations, all considered part of Fort Sumter National Monument. The NPS never does us any favors not having one official list like with the NHLs, with the different names and categories, etc. It's possible they were separate at one point and are not any longer. We'll probably have to dig up the declarations, but until we do, I dont believe I've seen a reliable source saying that Moultrie is a separate National Monument? dm (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I probably should have caught this back in September when I turned the list into the table. There were other entries which needed to be removed at the time. dm (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a big thing to do by actually calling them - Thanks! So shall I go ahead and remove it and note it in the Sumter description? I'll have to update all the numbers at the top, too, then. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's give it a day for other comments to show up, but yes, I believe we should remove its row and mention it in the Fort Sumter line. The articles should be modified to state this as well. dm (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Fort Moultrie is removed and the numbers are updated. Reywas92^Talk 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Newberry is a National Volcanic Monument. Is that the same thing as a National Monument? dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Same thing, just a more specific name. Mount St. Helens is also a National Volcanic Monument, and a few are Marine National Monuments. Reywas92^Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• There's a possibility we'll be able to add a photo of Hohokam Pima, dealing with license issues right now. dm (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• And its added, BruceandLetty really came through. dm (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Great Sand Dunes National Park was a National Monument according to its page, but is not on the link we offer in the intro which if I understand correctly are only the NPS ones which are no longer National Monuments. dm (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

[[List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#Decommissioned_National_Monuments|That list] has all the former NMs that are no longer under NPS control, but it's lacking in those that were given a different designation because they're somewhere else on that page; there are at least 50 former NMs according to this site, which lists all of them. I could work on adding more to that list later. Reywas92^Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.